Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lungdeflator" data-source="post: 244254" data-attributes="member: 5163">How many scientific studies are done in 6 months?&nbsp; A year?&nbsp; Short answer is little to none.&nbsp; So while studies are being conducted, the disease is spreading.&nbsp; Compare it to some kind of disease outbreak in humans (bird flu?) would you rather have 5 year studies done or have people quarantined and try to quell the outbreak before it gets out of control?&nbsp;&nbsp; Maybe it turns out the quarantined people didn't need to be quarantined, but maybe just maybe the quarantine saved lives of thousands of people.&nbsp; Sure MN only has a .0008% infection rate in their &quot;hotspot&quot;.&nbsp; I'm sure they would love to keep it that way.&nbsp; WI is around 30%.&nbsp; When did WI try the eradication?&nbsp; When their infection rate was already above 20%?&nbsp; Maybe they would've had better results if tried it when the rate was only .0008%.&nbsp; Maybe not, I don't know.Point is, nobody knows for sure how CWD works or how to combat it.&nbsp; Everybody is playing the &quot;what if&quot; game.&nbsp;&nbsp; As far as a money grab, I think eradication is the opposite of money grab.&nbsp; With all the unknowns of CWD (human contraction?), advertising that your state or area has CWD is bad news.&nbsp; Eradicating all your deer is bad news.&nbsp; People hunting in that area will go down, outfitters will shut down, land values will go down.&nbsp; All the above is negative revenue for the state.&nbsp; I see no benefit to having CWD in an area or state.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lungdeflator, post: 244254, member: 5163"] How many scientific studies are done in 6 months? A year? Short answer is little to none. So while studies are being conducted, the disease is spreading. Compare it to some kind of disease outbreak in humans (bird flu?) would you rather have 5 year studies done or have people quarantined and try to quell the outbreak before it gets out of control? Maybe it turns out the quarantined people didn't need to be quarantined, but maybe just maybe the quarantine saved lives of thousands of people. Sure MN only has a .0008% infection rate in their "hotspot". I'm sure they would love to keep it that way. WI is around 30%. When did WI try the eradication? When their infection rate was already above 20%? Maybe they would've had better results if tried it when the rate was only .0008%. Maybe not, I don't know. Point is, nobody knows for sure how CWD works or how to combat it. Everybody is playing the "what if" game. As far as a money grab, I think eradication is the opposite of money grab. With all the unknowns of CWD (human contraction?), advertising that your state or area has CWD is bad news. Eradicating all your deer is bad news. People hunting in that area will go down, outfitters will shut down, land values will go down. All the above is negative revenue for the state. I see no benefit to having CWD in an area or state. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA